What is Taylorism?

[Broletariat]

Why was it implemented, why do some people (on the left) support it and why do some oppose it?

[syndicat]

in the 1890s a group of socalled "efficiency experts" or management consultants seized control of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers to promote so-called "scientific management." This is the origin of taylorism. This gained its first applications in the years just before World War 1 in mass production industries such as textiles and metal working, where it was often used to force insane speedup. Taylorist methods were the big issue in the major IWW strikes between 1909 and 1914, such as Patterson, Lawrence, McKees Rocks.

Taylorism was also a response to the growth of the AFL skilled worker unions in the late 1890s. the big corps were trying to break the unions and the hold of the skilled crafts, through reorg of jobs to reduce skill requirements and fragment jobs. This would lessen the leverage workers would have, since skill is a form of leverage.

Taylorism is basically a management control strategy. It has nothing to do with technology or science. Nor is it necessarily more efficient. It's not necessarily more efficient because countless studies have shown that increased worker control and participation increases productivity. But increased worker control is a threat to management prerogative and power.

Taylorism means that jobs are systematically redesigned so as to limit worker initiative and autonomy and to concentrate planning and decision-making authority into the hands of managers and a cadre of highend professionals. Thus taylorism led to a huge increase in the numbers of people in the corp and state sectors in the socalled professions, such as accountants, engineers, HR experts, lawyers as well as huge increases in the numbers of managers and supervisors. And this has been an ongoing trend...today 15 percent of the economically active population in USA are supervisors or managers, up from 12 percent in 1989.

The socalled Toyota system of lean production, multitasking and just in time are simply extensions of taylorism. the Japanese industrial engineers who devised these systems saw themselves as working in the "scientific management" tradition.

after 1917 revolution in Russia both Lenin and Trotsky advocated taylorism as a way to increase productivity, using things like pitting workers against each other with piece rates (notorious under Stalin).

but taylorism is inconsistent with actual worker power since it empowers a bureaucratic class ruling over workers in production.

[Broletariat]

in the 1890s a group of socalled "efficiency experts" or management consultants seized control of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers to promote so-called "scientific management." This is the origin of taylorism. This gained its first applications in the years just before World War 1 in mass production industries such as textiles and metal working, where it was often used to force insane speedup. Taylorist methods were the big issue in the major IWW strikes between 1909 and 1914, such as Patterson, Lawrence, McKees Rocks.

Taylorism was also a response to the growth of the AFL skilled worker unions in the late 1890s. the big corps were trying to break the unions and the hold of the skilled crafts, through reorg of jobs to reduce skill requirements and fragment jobs. This would lessen the leverage workers would have, since skill is a form of leverage.

Taylorism is basically a management control strategy. It has nothing to do with technology or science. Nor is it necessarily more efficient. It's not necessarily more efficient because countless studies have shown that increased worker control and participation increases productivity. But increased worker control is a threat to management prerogative and power.

Taylorism means that jobs are systematically redesigned so as to limit worker initiative and autonomy and to concentrate planning and decision-making authority into the hands of managers and a cadre of highend professionals. Thus taylorism led to a huge increase in the numbers of people in the corp and state sectors in the socalled professions, such as accountants, engineers, HR experts, lawyers as well as huge increases in the numbers of managers and supervisors. And this has been an ongoing trend...today 15 percent of the economically active population in USA are supervisors or managers, up from 12 percent in 1989.

The socalled Toyota system of lean production, multitasking and just in time are simply extensions of taylorism. the Japanese industrial engineers who devised these systems saw themselves as working in the "scientific management" tradition.
While I appreciate the response, I'm looking to know more of what LITERALLY Taylorism is, you've sort of told me what derives from Taylorism.

[syndicat]

i did tell you want it is. it means

1. re-organizing the jobs and workflows to minimize the skill requirements for workers, and

2. concentrate planning and decision-making into the hands of managers and professionals working with management, taking discretion and control from workers.

3. reducing the skill requirements for jobs, to reduce both expenses of hiring more skilled workers and also to reduce leverage of workers in production which comes from having skills or autonomy in work.

4. giving workers very detailed instructions on how to do jobs, and/or using machines (including computer software) to deskill jobs and monitor and control workers. this, again, is to reduce worker discretion or autonomy in work and increase pace of work.

use of machines to control and pace workers was Henry Ford's innovation or addon to the original Taylor program. nowadays IT is used for this purpose.

[Broletariat]

i did tell you want it is. it means

1. re-organizing the jobs and workflows to minimize the skill requirements for workers, and

2. concentrate planning and decision-making into the hands of managers and professionals working with management, taking discretion and control from workers.

3. reducing the skill requirements for jobs, to reduce both expenses of hiring more skilled workers and also to reduce leverage of workers in production which comes from having skills or autonomy in work.

4. giving workers very detailed instructions on how to do jobs, and/or using machines (including computer software) to deskill jobs and monitor and control workers. this, again, is to reduce worker discretion or autonomy in work and increase pace of work.

use of machines to control and pace workers was Henry Ford's innovation or addon to the original Taylor program. nowadays IT is used for this purpose.
I know you were just paraphrasing yourself here, but for some reason when you re-worded it it made more sense, thanks.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I understand that Lenin advocated Taylorism in early Soviet Russia. His advocacy of Taylorism wasn't just as an emergency response to the horrible situation the Russian revolution faced but was quite enthusistic. He saw it as a model for industry and technology of the future. I've always seen Taylorism and its modern variants to be horribly dehumanizing. What was going on with this?

[mikelepore]

While I appreciate the response, I'm looking to know more of what LITERALLY Taylorism is, you've sort of told me what derives from Taylorism.

Type this phrase into a Google search box:
"time and motion study"

[ComradeOm]

Taylorism is simply an early form of operations management. That is, a more scientific and technical way of organising production. As such it is now employed, to some degree, in almost every major industrial enterprise. Key elements include the likes of time studies, improved workplace ergonomics, statistical tools, computerised production/materials planning, etc. Its based on the likes of these, with their emphasis on data collection and standardisation, that more advanced production/industrial engineering philosophies are built

Rejecting these tools/theories, or throwing around language like "deskilling", is akin to advocating artisan production. Any socialist economy is going to be built on the foundations of capitalist production and not that of the 19th C

Historically, Taylorism got a pretty bad rap because its early implementation was almost exclusively advocated by paternalistic industrialists with a view towards reducing humans to cogs. Some examples, particularly in early 20th C France, were quite brutal with regards isolating and instilling fear into individual workers. Today however the core theory is an integral aspect of production planning

[syndicat]

Taylorism is simply an early form of operations management. That is, a more scientific and technical way of organising production. As such it is now employed, to some degree, in almost every major industrial enterprise. Key elements include the likes of time studies, improved workplace ergonomics, statistical tools, computerised production/materials planning, etc. Its based on the likes of these, with their emphasis on data collection and standardisation, that more advanced production/industrial engineering philosophies are built


Glad to know you're an advocate of the continued subordination and oppression of workers. Consistent with your Leninism at least. The claim that Taylorism has something to do with science is the ideology of bureaucratic capitalism. It is a false claim. Taylorism is a management strategy for control of workers.

For a good description of contemporary Taylorism and its oppressive meaning for workers, I highly recommend Simon Head, "The New Ruthless Economy". See also Steve Marglin "What do bosses do?" and Harry Braverman, "Labor and Monopoly Capital". The latter is essential for understanding Taylorism from a marxist point of view.

As Braverman points out, the alternative to Taylorism is to educate the working class to an engineering level of knowledge and organize production under a kind of science-informed collective craftsmanship. not a return to the individual artisan of yore, but to the collective science-informmed artisanship of an authentic socialism, where workers are masters of production.

[chegitz guevara]

The point of advocating Taylorism was not to subordinate the worker class, but to increase productivity. Increasing productivity in capitalism comes at the expense of workers and enriches the capitalist class (thus further impoverishing the workers). In a socialist society, that increased productivity would benefit the workers, either by increasing the amount of goods available, decreasing working hours, or both.

[Zanthorus]

Except the studies show that worker management of production is more efficient. Although to be fair Taylorism was still pretty new at the time and Lenin didn't have the benefit of access to sources comparing efficiency of worker management and "scientific" management.

But it's slightly worrying that some people in this thread advocate Taylorism as a model for socialism.

[syndicat]

The point of advocating Taylorism was not to subordinate the worker class, but to increase productivity. Increasing productivity in capitalism comes at the expense of workers and enriches the capitalist class (thus further impoverishing the workers). In a socialist society, that increased productivity would benefit the workers, either by increasing the amount of goods available, decreasing working hours, or both.


yeah but this shows what the priorities of Lenin & Trotsky were. and the fact is, Lenin had no faith in the ability of the proletariat to manage. when a congress of regional planning organizations in 1918 voted for majority of reps being elected by workers, Lenin was livid in anger and insisted it could not be more than 1/3, and then the party cadres dutifully changed the decision to agree with Lenin's view. this incident is described in "The Bolsheviks & Workers Control".

[ComradeOm]

Glad to know you're an advocate of the continued subordination and oppression of workers. Consistent with your Leninism at least.Keep pushing and I'll start advocating shooting anarchists :rolleyes:


The claim that Taylorism has something to do with science is the ideology of bureaucratic capitalism. It is a false claimA sentence that just reveals your ignorance. There is nothing scientific about production planning techniques or quality statistical controls? There is nothing scientific about using advanced computation methods to plan future expansion or handle material requirements? There is nothing scientific about the allocation of resources through or understanding production flows/activities through operational research methods? Of course not, all these are simply keeping the workers down :rolleyes:

More to the point, operations management is scientific in the crucial sense that it involves the collection of data, interpretation of this through the use analytical (often statistical) techniques, and then basing future changes/actions on these worked conclusions. This is a process for the management of operations, as its name suggests, and not workers. There is a whole other branch of management theory concerned with labour relations but this has absolutely nothing to do with what is being lumped together as "Taylorism"


The latter is essential for understanding Taylorism from a marxist point of viewDon't talk to me about the Marxist view, not when you advocate a return to artisan production


As Braverman points out, the alternative to Taylorism is to educate the working class to an engineering level of knowledge and organize production under a kind of science-informed collective craftsmanship. not a return to the individual artisan of yore, but to the collective science-informmed artisanship of an authentic socialism, where workers are masters of production.Blah blah blah. This is a passage that purports to say everything but reveals nothing. Clearly management types are not the only ones to have mastered buzzwords

How exactly do you propose to manage the material requirements of a large enterprise without an MRP system?* And how do you propose that this system be maintained/managed if not by a specialist familiar with its workings and with the experience/knowledge necessary to make judgement calls in this area?

*A tool that whose only purpose being to "control the workers" of course :rolleyes:


yeah but this shows what the priorities of Lenin & Trotsky were. and the fact is, Lenin had no faith in the ability of the proletariat to managePiece rates were reluctantly reinstated by the trade union and FC movements in late 1917 when it became clear that the free for all that had prevailed post-October had not saved the economy. Quite the contrary in fact. Brinton's bullshit, which I have criticised many times before on this forum, ignores the reality* that in the months following the revolution great leeway was indeed given to the "creative power of the masses". Increased central authority and the re-imposition of basic management techniques (even those as simple as profit and loss accounting) were only slowly introduced when it became apparent that Russia was heading for a terminal economic catastrophe

* I say "ignores" but its more akin to "writes off as some grand Bolshevik conspiracy"


But it's slightly worrying that some people in this thread advocate Taylorism as a model for socialismIts far more worrying that some people reject the concept of specialisation and advocate a return to craftsmanship. This would entail throwing out virtually every development in industrial/production engineering in the past century. I can only assume that the people advocating such a profoundly stupid act have absolutely no idea as to the theories that they so despise and have never set foot in a factory in their lives

[FriendlyLocalViking]

The Viking, as a historian, interprets a different meaning from Taylorism. There are the meanings above, but there's anotherone: Taylor was a historian whose thesis was that Hitler wasn't anything special, but simply an extention of the normal German attitude. He was a rabid anti-German, and sadly his ideas were very popular from the late fourties to the sixties. Luckily they're more or less dead now.

[syndicat]

Its far more worrying that some people reject the concept of specialisation and advocate a return to craftsmanship.

Craftsmanship and specialization are not incompatible. Nor did I say there wouldn't be specialization. If we're for workers being masters of production, and the elimination of the power of the bureaucratic class -- things you're obviously not in favor of -- then it will be necessary to vastly change the educational system, which is currently designed to train working class children for obedience, to democratize knowledge and create a system of continuous education and training, to develop skills and expertise broadly in the workforce, so that everyone has skill and expertise enough to participate effectively in planning and decision-making.

And this will definitely require a change to the various systems and technologies in place in industry.

But there is no necessity for each person to learn everything. That is a strawman. In public transit systems there is service system planning. Currently people are hired out of college to do this, and bus drivers are overworked and can't control the planning to ensure things like adequate meal and break periods. Driving is such a stressful occupation drivers often don't live long enough to enjoy much of their pension. So, the idea here is to create combined jobs. A job that includes working on service planning part of the month, and driving a bus part of the time, for example. The math in service planning is not that difficult. Service coordinators can also work part of the time as drivers.

In this case there is still specialization. The bus driver who knows the ins and outs of vehicle design and works part of the time in that field, is specialized. A bus driver who works part of the time in service planning is specialized.

Also, you're not using the word "Taylorism" the way it's used in the social science literature. As I said, the most detailed Marxist examination of Taylorism is Braverman.

[chegitz guevara]

Except the studies show that worker management of production is more efficient. Although to be fair Taylorism was still pretty new at the time and Lenin didn't have the benefit of access to sources comparing efficiency of worker management and "scientific" management.

emphasis added, this is key

Taylorism had the stamp of science on it. Lenin and the others thought it would help liberate humanity, not oppress it. Certain comrades need to keep context in mind. Context determines everything. In 1917, they didn't have studies to the contrary.

[syndicat]

so, you're saying they couldn't tell that tight control over workers and use of piece rates to force workers into competition wasn't anti-worker? If so, that speaks volumes about their own consciousness, doesn't it?

[chegitz guevara]

What's more anti-worker, letting me have complete control, but necessity forcing me to work 12 hours a day, or assigning specific tasks to be carried out a particular way that takes me six hours? What's more antiworker, letting me have complete freedom to do whatever I want, and in the ensuing chaos, causing millions to starve, or organizing production in such a way as to make sure we all have a comfortable life?

Maybe you should stop being dogmatic and look at it from the stand point of trying to create a society in which everyone has enough and we don't have to spend all of our time working.

And, of course, you completely ignore context. Cuz we all know, that when you're involved in a fight to the death with fourteen countries and multiple armies, that the best thing to do is let production collapse.

[syndicat]

What's more anti-worker, letting me have complete control, but necessity forcing me to work 12 hours a day, or assigning specific tasks to be carried out a particular way that takes me six hours?

Figuring out how people can work fewer hours is not what Taylorism is about, nor was that what Lenin and Trotsky were on about. It is about forcing or manipulating people to work harder.

Also, why does figuring out ways to enable greater productivity require a top down managerial hierarchy? All studies show that worker self-management increases productivity.



What's more antiworker, letting me have complete freedom to do whatever I want, and in the ensuing chaos, causing millions to starve, or organizing production in such a way as to make sure we all have a comfortable life?

This is called a strawman. And it shows a lack of faith in the ability of the working class. If people with knowledge and skills can develop better ways to work, which would decrease hours of work, why wouldn't they be able to convince workers to adopt them?

The fact is, the factory committee movement had developed its own proposals for how to improve coordination...but these were rejected by the Bolsheviks because they were not consistent with top down state centralism which empowers the party leaders.



And, of course, you completely ignore context. Cuz we all know, that when you're involved in a fight to the death with fourteen countries and multiple armies, that the best thing to do is let production collapse.


The Bolsheviks introduced top down state central planning in Nov 1917 and Lenin and Trotsky began beating the drum for Taylorism and one-man management in early 1918...this was long before the civil war which didn't begin til the summer of 1918.

[blake 3:17]

The anarchist v Leninist debate is worth having but it could be a new thread. I'd kind of like this to stay on topic.

Labor and Monopoly Capital by Harry Braverman is excellent on this stuff. I found it very very readable and would suggest to folks that haven't read it to read it and for those who have to reread it.

The Labor Notes crew have done some of the best stuff on updating this line of thought by examining Total Quality Management and Just In Time production. Their complements are stratification within the class as a whole and in paticular work places and industries. While we oppose them in principle, they do open up new fault lines and contradictions within capitalist social relations and give certain portions of the working class the ability to really mess with capital.

Discussing those issues would seem to me more helpful.

I came across this useful contemporary article on the Labor Notes site: http://www.labornotes.org/2010/05/confronting-blame-worker-safety-programs

[chegitz guevara]

All studies show that worker self-management increases productivity.

Really, what studies were those in 1917? Are the Bolsheviks supposed to have been privy to some sort of time travel, so they can jump forward in time to get these studies, but not get any other information, like how the revolution failed? I'm just wondering why you think the Bolsheviks were supposed to know 90 years ago what we know today.

As for what Lenin and Trotsky wanted and the rest, I'm not interested in engaging in a stupid tendency war.

[syndicat]

in the USA in the World War 1 era both the Molder's Union and the Machinists' union and the first Auto Workers Union (formed in Detroit in 1916) had critiques of taylorism. some of this is discussed in "Five Dollar Day" by Steve Meyer. in a piece by Mike Davis back in the '70s in "Radical America", he talks about how all the big IWW strikes between 1909 and 1914 -- Lawrence, Patterson, McKees Rocks -- were struggles prompted by the introduction of the taylor system in these industries.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

My understanding is that Taylorism, the system of "scientific management" devised by Frederick Winslow Taylor, was hated and resisted by workers ever since its introduction in the Midvale Steel Co. in 1875. Taylor himself was booted out of his job at the Watertown Armory near Boston in 1911 because he and his system were widely hated (the armory workers were in what was regarded as an important industry and had leverage vis a vis the bosses).
Taylorism was regarded as a method for reducing the worker's authority and control over the work process.

Lenin must have known this.Zizek connects this to the mechanistic, people as machines philosophy of the early Bolsheviks also expressed in futurism and other movements. He claimed that "Stalinism saved civilization" by reviving the humanistic culture of Russia-Tolstoy, Turgenev, Tchiakovsky, etc. I'm not sure what to make of this.I still can't tell if Zizek is a serious thinker, a poser, or both.

It could be that the idea of "people as machines" did not have the same dehumanizing connotation it does today.

[Psy]

Figuring out how people can work fewer hours is not what Taylorism is about, nor was that what Lenin and Trotsky were on about. It is about forcing or manipulating people to work harder.

No the idea is to make workers work smarter I've seen wasted labor because workers made bad decisions on their own a common one is using power tools to get nuts on bolts instead of hand tightening first dramatically increasing the risk of cross threading.



Also, why does figuring out ways to enable greater productivity require a top down managerial hierarchy? All studies show that worker self-management increases productivity.

Because workers on the floor lacks a macro point of view just like how individual troops lack a macro point of view of the war. For example a train crew puts blind faith in the dispatcher for good reason (that reason being the dispatcher knows more then they do).

[syndicat]

No the idea is to make workers work smarter I've seen wasted labor because workers made bad decisions on their own a common one is using power tools to get nuts on bolts instead of hand tightening first dramatically increasing the risk of cross threading.


that's bureaucratic class propaganda. the idea that workers with the requisite experience and skills would not think to use power tools is silly.


Because workers on the floor lacks a macro point of view just like how individual troops lack a macro point of view of the war. For example a train crew puts blind faith in the dispatcher for good reason (that reason being the dispatcher knows more then they do).

more bureaucratic class propaganda. if workers are educated and trained to have relevant expertise, they can also do the conceptualization and coordination. since the early 1900s, American industry has had jobs re-org'd following the taylorist methods, of concentration of decsion-making and expertise and planning into management hands, so, of course, if workers are denied knowledge and training and skill-development, and these things are focused on a minority, then the hierarchy will have "the broader view". but there is nothing inevitable about this.

Psy's view confuses the class interests of the dominating classes with some trans-historical necessity.

[Psy]

that's bureaucratic class propaganda. the idea that workers with the requisite experience and skills would not think to use power tools is silly.

It is opposite, they use power tools when power tools can cause damage at that point for example putting a nut on a bolt with a power tool instead of putting a nut on a bolt with their hand and using a power tool to tighten.



more bureaucratic class propaganda. if workers are educated and trained to have relevant expertise, they can also do the conceptualization and coordination.

They are usually too busy dealing with production on their end for example train crews are mostly pre-occupied dealing with their train to worry about trains elsewhere. For example it is just crazy to think a train crew can know where every train on the line is at any given movement or would want to know as that is what dispatchers are for, same with aircrew they don't want to track every aircraft over an airport they want air traffic control to do that and for air traffic control to simply tell them where to go.



since the early 1900s, American industry has had jobs re-org'd following the taylorist methods, of concentration of decsion-making and expertise and planning into management hands, so, of course, if workers are denied knowledge and training and skill-development, and these things are focused on a minority, then the hierarchy will have "the broader view". but there is nothing inevitable about this.

Yet the same has happened in the military, even though DARPA thought cybernetics was suppose to make each squad have full awareness of the battlefield in reality troops get information overload if they try to digest all that information and instead require someone else looking after the big picture.

[syndicat]

It is opposite, they use power tools when power tools can cause damage at that point for example putting a nut on a bolt with a power tool instead of putting a nut on a bolt with their hand and using a power tool to tighten.



the point is, you are being absurd, if you suppose that workers are experienced and have the knowledge to manage production would not know this.


They are usually too busy dealing with production on their end for example train crews are mostly pre-occupied dealing with their train to worry about trains elsewhere. For example it is just crazy to think a train crew can know where every train on the line is at any given movement or would want to know as that is what dispatchers are for, same with aircrew they don't want to track every aircraft over an airport they want air traffic control to do that and for air traffic control to simply tell them where to go.


sorry, but you are, once again, being obtuse. of course workers do different jobs. a person who is on a train crew is not a dispatcher. so what?

that is different than saying that there needs to be a separate class who concentrate the conceptualization, planning and decision-making authority. if you're trying to infer this from your example, your inference is fallacious.

to take a previous example I gave. we can suppose that there are some bus drivers who do service planning. this could be done allso with train crews. this doesn't mean that a person does the planning while driving the bus or train. it means they spend some time per month working on up the service plan, and some part of the month driving a bus or train. or they spend certain part of their work time working on design of a new generation of vehicles, and some time working on the vehilces.

[Psy]

the point is, you are being absurd, if you suppose that workers are experienced and have the knowledge to manage production would not know this.

The problem is workers not being experienced at that particular task, it is common for inexperienced workers to put a nut in power tool socket and then try to put on a bolt as when you first think about it makes sense, the socket will hold the nut just like a ratchet the problem is power tools have far much torque and few workers set the torque limits on modern power tools as skilled workers are skilled enough to not have to use them and unskilled workers don't know how to use them with a standard operating procedure.

Now you might think okay but experienced workers know what they are doing, yes but that means workers are not interchangeable for example a car factory can tell a worker experienced in installing the engine to help paint the car for a shift without having the experienced workers painting cars slowing down to bring the relative newbie up to speed worse if we are talking about a worker completely new to the whole industry fresh out of school.

You also have to deal with emergencies for example you don't just expect people to find their way out of building during a fire instead you have fire drills to use taloyrism to fine tune the movement of people out of the building to find issues that might accrue during evacuations and so workers have a evacuation plan instead of making up their own plans.




sorry, but you are, once again, being obtuse. of course workers do different jobs. a person who is on a train crew is not a dispatcher. so what?

that is different than saying that there needs to be a separate class who concentrate the conceptualization, planning and decision-making authority. if you're trying to infer this from your example, your inference is fallacious.

You still going to have a hierarchy of command for time sensitive decisions, a good example
to take a previous example I gave. we can suppose that there are some bus drivers who do service planning. this could be done allso with train crews. this doesn't mean that a person does the planning while driving the bus or train. it means they spend some time per month working on up the service plan, and some part of the month driving a bus or train. or they spend certain part of their work time working on design of a new generation of vehicles, and some time working on the vehilces.

They could still use taylorism to use increase movement efficiency. For example if engineers saw "we set up cameras and ran simulations, you won't exert yourself as much if you do these movements" I doubt workers would scream "you evil taylorist even though it would be taylorism.

[BAM]

A thread in Learning on Frederick Taylor and no-one has mentioned Brendan Cooney's video on the topic?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa4_ihxT9rI

[ComradeOm]

Also, you're not using the word "Taylorism" the way it's used in the social science literature. As I said, the most detailed Marxist examination of Taylorism is Braverman.Correct - I'm using it in the way its used today in industry. If you want to discuss "Taylorism" in its original context then I suggest that you take the discussion to the history forum because "Taylorism", as originally practised, has been obsolete for almost a century. What we have now are the likes of industrial engineering, operations management/research, etc

But then I note that you talk of "social science literature", "the educational system", etc. Be honest here - do you have any real understanding of the roles that you so blithely talk of abolishing? Do you have any idea how central these are to modern production or are you coming at this from a purely social sciences standpoint?


Craftsmanship and specialization are not incompatible. Nor did I say there wouldn't be specialization. If we're for workers being masters of production, and the elimination of the power of the bureaucratic class -- things you're obviously not in favor of -- then it will be necessary to vastly change the educational system, which is currently designed to train working class children for obedience, to democratize knowledge and create a system of continuous education and training, to develop skills and expertise broadly in the workforce, so that everyone has skill and expertise enough to participate effectively in planning and decision-makingWhich is all very well and nice but you don't have a clue what "participating effectively in planning and decision-making" actually means. The reality is that managing operations in a modern manufacturing facility of any decent size is a horrendously complex task. Even with computer aids it is more often than not far beyond the capabilities of a single planner. It cannot be done part-time and requires considerable training. There's a reason why planners spend years at university, why there are additional certification courses, and why a vast body of literature has grown up around the subject. This is not an easy role to perform and it is not one that is possible to simply take up for a month or so

What I would expect to see in a socialist workplace is these planners being made responsible to the wider workforce, as opposed to the capitalist management. Not simply abolishing a necessary role. There is absolutely no reason why planners or engineers (who I suppose you are also in favour of getting rid of) should constitute a "bureaucratic class" - particularly not when these positions are open to all with the ability and desire to take them on - when they are working within a democratic workplace


The math in service planning is not that difficultAnd on the basis of this you are going to reorganise society? Well then, let me tell you that the "math" involved in planning production can get very difficult. Particularly so the further you go along the ops research road

As an aside, it is also entirely dependent on having set times available for operations - the reason production engineers are so keen on standardisation is that planning is impossible unless you can quantify your available capacity. This involves knowing, with little to no variation, just how quickly a particular task can be completed or how many units are produced an hour. Hence time studies and specialisation. Which brings us back to craftsmanship and its fundamental incompatibility with modern production


In this case there is still specialization. The bus driver who knows the ins and outs of vehicle design and works part of the time in that field, is specialized. A bus driver who works part of the time in service planning is specialized.No. A worker who divides his/her time equally between driving a bus and planning routes is no longer specialised in either. What you have here is cross-training

What we have here is a dogmatic refusal to consider that some tasks require a greater level of education/training than others. Frankly you might as well train everyone in first-aid in order to save on surgeons


The Viking, as a historian, interprets a different meaning from Taylorism. There are the meanings above, but there's anotherone: Taylor was a historian whose thesis was that Hitler wasn't anything special, but simply an extention of the normal German attitude. He was a rabid anti-German, and sadly his ideas were very popular from the late fourties to the sixties. Luckily they're more or less dead now. I wouldn't be too harsh on Taylor. Undoubtedly he was wrong on numerous points but the Sonderweg, of which he was certainly not the only proponent, did correct some theories that simply blamed Hitler for everything. That his thesis has been superseded is no great loss but it did
provoke some interesting discussions

[syndicat]

But then I note that you talk of "social science literature", "the educational system", etc. Be honest here - do you have any real understanding of the roles that you so blithely talk of abolishing? Do you have any idea how central these are to modern production or are you coming at this from a purely social sciences standpoint?


I've worked for more than 20 years in computer hardware and software manufacturing. I've worked in software engineering departments for half that time. Before that in the hardware end. Before that I taught a mathematical subject.


The reality is that managing operations in a modern manufacturing facility of any decent size is a horrendously complex task. Even with computer aids it is more often than not far beyond the capabilities of a single planner. It cannot be done part-time and requires considerable training. There's a reason why planners spend years at university, why there are additional certification courses, and why a vast body of literature has grown up around the subject. This is not an easy role to perform and it is not one that is possible to simply take up for a month or so


A lot of university training isn't really relevant. I'll give an example. I worked for a couple years on a massive system management product for the telecom industry. It's a system used to manage and monitor massive telecom networks.

The work of the software engineers was taylorized. In software engineering this was the point to so-called object oriented programming. It allows for separate building and testing small elements of a larger system. The result was that the engineers typically had no idea what the product was used for. They were usually young engineers who had been hired out of college. They had very abstract computer science training, not training in how networks operate in the real world. Partly due to taylorizatin, I found that they had only a theoretical level of knowledge of the product. I found that network admins, who do not have college engineering training, usually knew more about how the product would be used and about the realities of networks than the engineers did. The overall design was mainly the work of a couple senior engineers called System Architects. They also worked with the divisional director to assign the engineers to their narrowly defined tasks.

This taylorized scheme doesn't really work very well, partly because, due to their not participating in the overall design, and not having practical experience in managing networks, it affects the quality of the overall product adversely.

Nowadays in fact there is an anti-taylorist trend in software development called Agile. This began with groups of programmers setting up startup companies. Agile rejects the taylorist approach in favor of self-managed workteams who consantly interact so that each knows what the other is doing. The motivation is often described as an almost artisanal desire for craftsmanship and quality. This new approach has become so popular among software developers the big companies are beginning to adapt it, as IBM did recently.

One of the rationales for the taylorist approach to software development was the idea that the separate parts created with the object-oriented approach could be reused, and thus be more "efficient." Except that in practice this didn't work.

when i worked in the hardware manufacturing end, I didn't see the kind of difficulties to self-management that you allege. To take an example, understanding microcode isn't really all that difficult. It's applied propositional logic, which can be taught to kids in junior high school.

I think what you're trying to do is protect your privileged position as an engineer.

[Psy]

The work of the software engineers was taylorized. In software engineering this was the point to so-called object oriented programming. It allows for separate building and testing small elements of a larger system. The result was that the engineers typically had no idea what the product was used for.

You mean like BSD Unix that is the undisputed king of industrial Operating Systems exactly to its modular design allowing BSD Unix to run on everything from 68000 embedded devices to massive super computers, meaning you can have BSD Unix running on all your machinery and on the central computer running the line even though the hardware is dramatically different yet due to BSD Unix modular design it is easy to port and scale.



They were usually young engineers who had been hired out of college. They had very abstract computer science training, not training in how networks operate in the real world. Partly due to taylorizatin, I found that they had only a theoretical level of knowledge of the product. I found that network admins, who do not have college engineering training, usually knew more about how the product would be used and about the realities of networks than the engineers did. The overall design was mainly the work of a couple senior engineers called System Architects. They also worked with the divisional director to assign the engineers to their narrowly defined tasks.

You know how it workered before you have university grads? You had gurus that tought all the normal engineers, lets face it you would never question the likes Bil Herd, Steve Woz, Jay Miner unless you are a engineer at their level of expertise.

Also this is a failure of the educational system not of scienific managment of production.




This taylorized scheme doesn't really work very well, partly because, due to their not participating in the overall design, and not having practical experience in managing networks, it affects the quality of the overall product adversely.

I agree they need to partake in the overal design but this happenes in the devlopment in BSD Unix as far as the specialized software engineers have a voice in the direction their fork of BSD Unix is devloping yet they still have a specialized task in its devlopment.




Nowadays in fact there is an anti-taylorist trend in software development called Agile. This began with groups of programmers setting up startup companies. Agile rejects the taylorist approach in favor of self-managed workteams who consantly interact so that each knows what the other is doing. The motivation is often described as an almost artisanal desire for craftsmanship and quality. This new approach has become so popular among software developers the big companies are beginning to adapt it, as IBM did recently.

This does not against specialization of labor, even in the hiachy of Commodore the software and hardware deparments did interact.





One of the rationales for the taylorist approach to software development was the idea that the separate parts created with the object-oriented approach could be reused, and thus be more "efficient." Except that in practice this didn't work.

BSD Unix proves this wrong as as BSD Unix can be reused for both embetted devices and for massive super computer which would have been the case if BSD Unix was engineered specifically for either task.



when i worked in the hardware manufacturing end, I didn't see the kind of difficulties to self-management that you allege. To take an example, understanding microcode isn't really all that difficult. It's applied propositional logic, which can be taught to kids in junior high school.

How many junior high school students could practically apply electronic engineering? How many could built a basic Z-80 computer without already being a electronics geek?

[chegitz guevara]

Damn those Bolshies for not using Agile management. If only they'd had scrums every morning, the revolution wouldn't have been betrayed.

Agile management works great for software and other largely creative type jobs (I personally love it). Not sure how well it would do in a factory.

[syndicat]

we have the example of the recuperated factories in Argentina. in "The Take" they talk about a metal forging operation that makes parts for another self-managed factory that makes tractors. in these recuperated factories the professional/managerial types didn't go along. the workers had to learn new sills, like accounting and aspects of engineering. and they have done so.

and this is without the general support of a complete social change, where you now have the resources to educate working people to a higher level of science-based knowledge and training.

in essence you Leninists are just elitists. your objection to the capitalist regime is not that there are bosses and exploitation but that you're not in charge.

[Psy]

we have the example of the recuperated factories in Argentina. in "The Take" they talk about a metal forging operation that makes parts for another self-managed factory that makes tractors. in these recuperated factories the professional/managerial types didn't go along. the workers had to learn new sills, like accounting and aspects of engineering. and they have done so.

and this is without the general support of a complete social change, where you now have the resources to educate working people to a higher level of science-based knowledge and training.

in essence you Leninists are just elitists. your objection to the capitalist regime is not that there are bosses and exploitation but that you're not in charge.
And what development plans were drawn across these occupied factories?

[chegitz guevara]

See Luxemberg's Reform or Revolution. The experience of the reocupado movement has proven her correct.

[ComradeOm]

I've worked for more than 20 years in computer hardware and software manufacturing. I've worked in software engineering departments for half that time. Before that in the hardware end. Before that I taught a mathematical subject.So you have experience in production planning...?


A lot of university training isn't really relevantOh, I wholeheartedly agree. A great deal of what is taught at university is bullshit; which is why I'd favour much more condensed practical courses. This does not however provide cause to simply write off the education/training as irrelevant. The theories and techniques, particularly the more practical statistical/technical methods, taught on these courses might not be applicable to every single factory but they are still necessary for a well-rounded planner/engineer to have

I would estimate that acquiring the preliminary knowledge base or skills, before throwing on the invaluable real-world experience, would take at least a solid twelve months of study/training. Is it possible to draw up a production plan, for example, without this training? Of course its possible – it just probably won't (and this is something I've seen first hand) be the most effective or functional one. Similarly with designing jigs/layouts/schedules/etc

So these roles do indeed demand time to acquire the necessary skills. I've barely even touched on the years of real hands-on experience that makes a good planner/engineer. That's a lot of time spent in training if you want everyone in the factory to be capable to assuming these positions on a rotating basis. I can't even see what the benefits of the latter would be

And, again, this is not even touching on the very mathematical led disciplines such as operations research and elements of computer simulation


Nowadays in fact there is an anti-taylorist trend in software development called Agile. This began with groups of programmers setting up startup companies. Agile rejects the taylorist approach in favor of self-managed workteams who consantly interact so that each knows what the other is doing. The motivation is often described as an almost artisanal desire for craftsmanship and quality. This new approach has become so popular among software developers the big companies are beginning to adapt it, as IBM did recently.Funnily enough a number of philosophies, such as Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), emphasise the importance of operator participation and initiative. Even TQM pays lip service to that horrible buzzword – employee 'empowerment'. Workers are not, and frankly have not been since the 50s, seen as mere cogs in the machine. Ironically enough this is all a deepening of worker specialisation. I say its funny because this, including your 'agile programming', would seem to contradict the main thrust of your argument

But then I freely admit to knowing next to nothing about computer programming. My experience comes entirely from actual production environments


I think what you're trying to do is protect your privileged position as an engineer.Well it’s a bit of an indictment that you've yet to outline just why engineers, including myself, are in a privileged position. This discussion has moved away from the idea that operations management is an inherently anti-worker practice (in reality its only anti-artisan) to the degree of training needed to perform certain specialised roles*. I've addressed the former in previous posts but my points seems to have been glossed over

So to recap, your argument is based on the suggestion that "Taylorism" is a) an entirely anti-worker programme and b) not as efficient as your "collective science-informed artisanship". Both arguments only hold true in the first decades of the 20th C. At the time many capitalists seized on "Taylorism" as a tool of control, as I noted in my very first post, which is one reason why critiques of the theory are so ridiculous today. The descendants of "Taylorism", ie under the umbrella of operations management, are concerned with practical problems and comprise a whole range of statistical/computational techniques that do validate the term 'scientific management'. Unlike the despised human resources, which has escaped almost unscathed in this thread for some reason, these are not concerned with the breaking or control of the workforce. One may as well dismiss automobiles on the basis that their top speed is 30kph and the battery has to be hand cranked

Which makes me smile whenever someone suggests that studies conducted in the 1910s are valid comparisons with today's production systems. Were the workers in these studies using statistical process control? Were they using MRP I or II? What was their approach to inventory control (ABC analysis, cycle counting, etc?) and quality? Please, one may as well compare a Model T (topical) to a Fiesta

But the latter is a particularly important point. To me it is axiomatic that any socialist society must lead to increases in production and that this can only be achieved by building on the advances of capitalism. This means taking technology (including process techniques!) and placing it in the hands of the workers. It does not mean jettisoning the past century of industrial engineering in order to return to some idealised craft environment

*And only some of them. We've ignored those tasks on the factory floor that require skilled operators


The Bolsheviks introduced top down state central planning in Nov 1917 and Lenin and Trotsky began beating the drum for Taylorism and one-man management in early 1918...this was long before the civil war which didn't begin til the summer of 1918. I missed this one earlier. Odd given that I've usually got a pretty good nose for gross historical inaccuracy

VSNKh was established in December 1917 at the urging of various groups including the CCPFC. You may be confusing Nov 1917 with Lenin's draft resolution on workers control, which was actually more radical than contemporary factory committee proposals

Lenin's "beating the drum" had little actual effect as the FCs and unions simply ignored him. 'Red dictators' (edinonachalie) did not become features of Soviet factories until the late 1920s. Until then the triad (treugol'nik) system of management prevailed

The Civil War began almost immediately following the October Revolution (in Petrograd) and by December there was fighting across the south of Russia and the Ukraine. The following year saw an escalation of this conflict which had begun long before "the summer of 1918"

[syndicat]

So to recap, your argument is based on the suggestion that "Taylorism" is a) an entirely anti-worker programme and b) not as efficient as your "collective science-informed artisanship". Both arguments only hold true in the first decades of the 20th C. At the time many capitalists seized on "Taylorism" as a tool of control, as I noted in my very first post, which is one reason why critiques of the theory are so ridiculous today. The descendants of "Taylorism", ie under the umbrella of operations management, are concerned with practical problems and comprise a whole range of statistical/computational techniques that do validate the term 'scientific management'. Unlike the despised human resources, which has escaped almost unscathed in this thread for some reason, these are not concerned with the breaking or control of the workforce.

well, have you actually read Taylor? The aims of Taylorism have always been:

1. Remove as much skill and discretion from workers as feasible. The reasons for this are twofold: a. reduce the firms labor bill through less reliance on hiring of people at higher wages. b. reduce the leverage that workers have due to their skills

Very often "management consultants" and the business press obfuscate the issue through their misuse of the term "skill." All work requires some skill. But "skilled jobs" are those that require forms of expertise that presuppose long periods of training such as apprenticeship or a couple years in some technical program or equivalent. In recent years with the adoption of the Toyota system AKA "lean production" there is a tendency to do more combined jobs, which the business press and management obfuscators call "multi-skilled." But it's more accurate to call them mult-tasking, because all the tasks are de-skilled.

2. Remove planning and decision-making discretion from workers and place this in the hands of management and special engineering or other expert groups attached to the management hierarchy.

This is the other side of the coin of de-skilling.

3. Give very precise instructions to workers on the exact steps to do each task. This is based on time and motion study and how to get the most work out of each worker.

4. Increase the pace of work.

Time-study was motivated by 1, 3 and 4. That's because, if you're going to re-organize the jobs and work flows, you need to study the individual tasks that make up the job. When Henry Ford and his team created the "prorgressive production" system at Highland Park between 1910 and 1917, they did time and motion study on thousands of discrete tasks.

The aim of re-orging work flows is to increase the pace of work. Ford's machine pacing had an advantage over Taylor's original scheme of detailed instruction cards (tho these are still used in industry, e.g. at UPS where package drivers are given a manual of very detailed instructions). The machine is a contant control on what a worker does.

Nowadays the equivalent of this are forms of computer-based monitoring and control. For example, the new electronic monitoring and control systems in warehouses. In a big warehouse a worker runs an electronic pallet and goes around picking cases to fulfill an order. With the new system, they know at each second where he is and can ensure that he doesn't have a spare moment to rest, because they know when he's not picking a case and can instruct him to the next case.

Doubling up jobs has always been a Taylorist tactic to increase the pace of work. Thus the "multi-tasking" jobs of the "lean production" approach are not really new. The big IWW strikes in 1909-1914 were prompted by the first applications of Taylorism. In the silk and textile industries the "efficiency experts" had gotten the firms to double up machines. So an operator would be stuck with monitoring multiple machines...and this was an insane pace of work imposed on this. This is the main thing that provoked the big Lawrence and Patterson strikes.

To say that "increasing production" is the primary aim of socialism is the worst sort of philistine materialism. In fact the aim of socialism is direct worker power over production and an end to class oppression and other forms of oppression. Taylorism itself is an expression of class oppression.

Now, in regard to Russia. Lenin's "worker control" decree of Nov 1917 merely legalized a situation that already existed, a situation that had been gained through class struggle by the factory committee movement. Moreover, there was nothing particularly radical about it. It called only for workers to monitor and check management, giving them a veto on things like hiring and firing, and the right to examine the books. But Lenin did not favor workers management of production.

However, there were between 300 and 400 enterprises seized by the workers between 1917 and 1918, and there wasn't anything the Bolshevik leadership could do about that...at first. But once the civil war got underway in the summer of 1918, they began to attack these systems of collective management. By 1920 there none left. This was precisely the point to the Workers Opposition demand for election of management boards. If they were still elected, they would not need to demand it.

In historical accounts the Russian civil war's beginning is usually equated with the revolt of the Czech Legion in June 1918. Foreign invasions and arms and financial aid to the whites by foreign imperialist powers didn't get underway til then.

After Oct 1917 it took about 3 months for the Bolsheviks to consolidate control in Russia...so maybe this is the fighting you are talking about. But that is not the same thing as what is usually meant by the "civil war."

"Job enrichment" is a fake form of worker participation, as is TQM. TQM and the Toyota kaizen quality cirlces are forms of "participatory taylorism". that is, they try to get workers to reveal what they've learned about how to do their jobs. It's well known that workers acquire a lot of tacit knowledge and learn tricks for getting more breathing room. If management can find out these techniques or induce suggestions, they can tighten up the pace of work. This is exactly the purpose of kaizen.

my programmer friends tell me they believe the corporate adoption of Agile means it will be watered down into just another "job enrichment" scheme.

when you ask about "production planning" you assume there's some class-neutral way of looking at this. but there isn't.

Management will of course say that the aim is "more production". Taking that as the "primary aim", without regard to worker control and human costs to workers, is to take the position of a dominating, exploiting class. You don't adopt a working class point of view, but a management point of view.

[ComradeOm]

well, have you actually read Taylor?As I made clear in my very first post in this thread, Taylorism is an anachronism. If you're eager to get Taylor out of the workplace then congratulations - you succeeded decades ago. You are arguing against a strawman while I am making the case for modern scientific management techniques


To say that "increasing production" is the primary aim of socialism is the worst sort of philistine materialism. In fact the aim of socialism is direct worker power over production and an end to class oppression and other forms of oppressionWhich can only follow on from greatly increasing society's productive forces. You don't do this by taking a step back to artisan production from the 19th C. You might as well tear up the modern presses or CNC machines


"Job enrichment" is a fake form of worker participation, as is TQM. TQM and the Toyota kaizen quality cirlces are forms of "participatory taylorism". that is, they try to get workers to reveal what they've learned about how to do their jobs. It's well known that workers acquire a lot of tacit knowledge and learn tricks for getting more breathing room. If management can find out these techniques or induce suggestions, they can tighten up the pace of work. This is exactly the purpose of kaizenGiving workers more responsibility to manage their operations (BTW, quality circles are so 1990s) is construed as a management trick to further oppress workers? You don't think its possible that management, contrary to "Taylorism", can see the benefits, ie increased production, from giving workers more leeway in the workplace?

You're perfectly right of course that increasing production is the key aim of any production philosophy. Factories are not daycare centres and socialism will not abolish work or the need to maintain production. What socialism will do is allow workers (collectively) to assume direction over their work and produce for themselves (again, collectively) rather than enriching the bourgeoisie


when you ask about "production planning" you assume there's some class-neutral way of looking at this. but there isn'tWell that's where I disagree. There's really no class motivation to putting together a production plan. Stuff has to be produced and it has to be produced in a certain order while maximising use of capacity. At its core that is a mathematical problem

You may as well argue that fitting a car engine or welding on a door are inherently bourgeois activities because they happen to be performed today. The reality is of course that they are not - in socialism engines will still have to be fitted and doors welded. What changes is the purpose of the task; ie, who benefits from the contributed labour


-----


Now, in regard to Russia. Lenin's "worker control" decree of Nov 1917 merely legalized a situation that already existed, a situation that had been gained through class struggle by the factory committee movement. Moreover, there was nothing particularly radical about it. It called only for workers to monitor and check management, giving them a veto on things like hiring and firing, and the right to examine the books.Actually Lenin's draft decree didn't legalise anything. It was a proposal. The measure ultimately adopted drew more from the factory committees themselves... which was more conservative than Lenin's draft


But Lenin did not favor workers management of productionNo, he was in favour of workers supervision of production. Which is what almost everyone took 'workers control' to mean. Once again Lenin is criticised for the 'crime' of not being a syndicalist


However, there were between 300 and 400 enterprises seized by the workers between 1917 and 1918, and there wasn't anything the Bolshevik leadership could do about that...at firstAgain, the Bolsheviks not opposing or even encouraging these actions is taken as a sign of impotence or deception. You don't think that they actually favoured them at the time?

Incidentally the figures you present are grossly exaggerated. SA Smith (Red Perograd) details a mere handful of complete seizures, accompanied by expulsion of management, in Petrograd during 1917-18. Of these all but one (maybe two) were the result of breakdowns in relations between management and workers and not any ideological programme. Seizures were more common further east but even then not the wave that they are often portrayed as. Even if your numbers are accurate (which they're not) 400 enterprises is a tiny percentage of Russian industry; Petrograd alone contained over 1200 enterprises

Most workers and factory committees contented themselves with workers supervision of accounts and managements. They also drove the nationalisation programme of 1918


In historical accounts the Russian civil war's beginning is usually equated with the revolt of the Czech Legion in June 1918. Foreign invasions and arms and financial aid to the whites by foreign imperialist powers didn't get underway til thenBy who? If you buy a book on the Russian Civil War and it doesn't start until June 1918 then please ask for your money back

The Volunteer Army was formed in December 1917 and there was fighting throughout the Don regions (ie, Red Army formations fought Volunteer Army formations) as early as January 1918. The Ice March was in February and Kornilov was killed in action while attempting to take Yekaterinodar in April. But then perhaps you don't consider it to be a proper war until Westerners get involved?

[syndicat]

Most workers and factory committees contented themselves with workers supervision of accounts and managements. They also drove the nationalisation programme of 1918


the factory committee movement did not "drive the nationalization program of 1918." this was imposed from above. the nationalization program was part of the process of eliminating management by worker committees, where it existed.

the factory committee movement had been effectively abolished by the vote of the First All-Russian Trade Union Congress in Jan 1918. the proposal there said the factory committees had to be taken over by, and be subordinate to, the trade unions. The trade unions in Russia were highly centralized affairs, controlled to a large extent by their national executive committees. by 1918 these organizations were largely controlled by their paid functionaries at the top, who by then were mostly Bolsheviks. the vote to subordinate the factory committees was also supported by the Mensheviks who agreed with the Bolsheviks in favoring a top-down, centralized and bureaucratic model of trade union.

in regard to CNC machines, there was a long fight over control of them at the time of their inception. instead of training machinists, who had formerly controlled machines manually, to do the coding and editing of tapes, engineers or special programmers were trained to do this, and machines in use were locked so that operators couldn't edit tapes.

but in Norway the union there, when CNC machines were introduced, forced management to train the machinists to do the coding and allowed them to do the editing of tapes.

what we see here is class struggle over control of the technology.

instead of a subordinated and deskilled group of machine operators being controlled by managers and engineers, there is no reason CNC machines could not be controlled by workers educated to an engineering level of knowledge.


As I made clear in my very first post in this thread, Taylorism is an anachronism. If you're eager to get Taylor out of the workplace then congratulations - you succeeded decades ago. You are arguing against a strawman while I am making the case for modern scientific management techniques


this merely shows your own ignorance of what taylorism is. there is a Japanese industrial engineer named Shingeo, who became well known in the '90s because of his efforts to de-skill and re-organize setup work, as when model changes take place in factories. In his book at the beginning he notes that at a certain point when he first began his career as an industrial engineer he had read Taylor and he said this inspired him to make "scientific management" his life work. And indeed his efforts to change the nature of set-up work are a good example of taylorism in recent practice.

"expert systems" are another example of taylorism in practice. that's because they script the work and the skill and expertise is built into the software, not training the worker. they are another example of deskilling and machine pacing in action.

I also mentioned the example of the new computerized systems for monitoring and controlling workers in big warehouses. IT has faciliated the latest expansion of taylorist practice because of the power it gives to management to constantly monitor a worker's time.

[Psy]

in regard to CNC machines, there was a long fight over control of them at the time of their inception. instead of training machinists, who had formerly controlled machines manually, to do the coding and editing of tapes, engineers or special programmers were trained to do this, and machines in use were locked so that operators couldn't edit tapes.

What is the point of machinists retooling a line on their own? The point of mass production is you design the product then setup the line to spit identical products as efficiently as possible. Meaning the line would be doing the exact same thing as it did the day before thus allowing operators to change programing is just a huge security risk as once the line is setup the machine would only need to be reprogrammed if the line is going to be retool, thus I could only see this for limited runs as for major runs there would be no reason for workers to change the program since if the line worked yesterday why fix what is not broke? Why not just tell the computer the start up the line and follow its programming? Are we to believe a machinists that is so much of a armature they were not part the R&D team would do better then the machinists of the R&D team that wrote the programing for all the factories in the world that were to produce the product?

[syndicat]

referring to worker control over the editing of CNC machines as a "security threat" is a dead giveaway. it shows you think of a conflict of interests between workers and management. in other words, you're thinking of technologies as applied within a system of class oppression & exploitation.

the "point" to the Norwegian metal workers union demanding workers have control over editing is that sometimes the engineers' programs won't work adequately because of things like machine tool wear or variations in hardness in the metal. these are things skilled machinists are trained to handle.

but if we think of self-managed socialism, where production is a common venture of the workers, the point is even more important, because the workers would control the design of the product, as well as the design of the techniques of production, so of course they would need to have power to both program & edit the tapes.

in this sense, CNC machines are a more worker-friendly technology than the first generation of NC machines which didn't have editing facilities built into the machines.

[Psy]

referring to worker control over the editing of CNC machines as a "security threat" is a dead giveaway. it shows you think of a conflict of interests between workers and management. in other words, you're thinking of technologies as applied within a system of class oppression & exploitation.

It is a security risk as makes easier for counter-revolutionaries to sabotage production. For example it would be much harder for fascist spies to pass on the plans on our battle tanks to fascist armies if the workers at factories don't see those plans as those plans are made in highly secured research centers protected by the revolutionary army and the workers just run the closed source written by the revolutionary army R&D centers. Thus the revolutionary army can focus its counter espionage resources to the research centers.



the "point" to the Norwegian metal workers union demanding workers have control over editing is that sometimes the engineers' programs won't work adequately because of things like machine tool wear or variations in hardness in the metal. these are things skilled machinists are trained to handle.

That can be dealt with the code allowing such adjustments yet that is different then letting machinists changing the code.




but if we think of self-managed socialism, where production is a common venture of the workers, the point is even more important, because the workers would control the design of the product, as well as the design of the techniques of production, so of course they would need to have power to both program & edit the tapes.

in this sense, CNC machines are a more worker-friendly technology than the first generation of NC machines which didn't have editing facilities built into the machines.
Why have factories design products that what research and design centers are for, if you want workers to take part in design decisions they should do it at the designing phase before the plans hit the factories once the designs hit the factories the designed should be locked with the only changes being to fix defects in the process yet even that should be done back at the design centers so the fix could be sent to all the factories around the world.

[ComradeOm]

the factory committee movement did not "drive the nationalization program of 1918." this was imposed from above. the nationalization program was part of the process of eliminating management by worker committees, where it existed.Patently false. Instead of trying to crush the tiny minority of factories that were worker managed, the Soviet government initially sought to retain capitalist management tempered by worker supervision. This clearly did not work and initially nationalisations were needed (and called for by the workers involved) to prevent owners from closing factories altogether. By early 1918 there was considerable pressure from below - transmitted through the unions/FCs, party, and soviets - for the Soviet government to take ownership of industry, which it did through a series of decrees. In contrast there was, according to Smith, very little anarchist inspired moved towards worker management of industry. For more detail see Smith (Red Petrograd), Rabinowitch (Bolsheviks in Power), and I'm fairly sure that Keep (A Study in Mass Mobilisation) also mentions it


the factory committee movement had been effectively abolished by the vote of the First All-Russian Trade Union Congress in Jan 1918. the proposal there said the factory committees had to be taken over by, and be subordinate to, the trade unionsOops. I guess you forgot about little affairs such as the Sixth Conference of Petrograd Factory Committees (22 to 27 Jan 1917) which voted for the amalgamation of FCs and unions? Unsurprisingly you won't find this in Brinton

Smith also details half a dozen examples in Petrograd alone where economic realities had already forced mergers between FCs and local district unions prior to this. The amalgamation with the unions was not ideal for the FCs but the idea that it was forced on them from above and in a dictatorial fashion is entirely false


The trade unions in Russia were highly centralized affairs, controlled to a large extent by their national executive committees. by 1918 these organizations were largely controlled by their paid functionaries at the top, who by then were mostly BolsheviksAnother funny little fact that is often overlooked is that by late 1917/1918 the FCs themselves were largely Bolshevik strongholds. Unsurprising given that they contained many of the most militant and radical workers who were naturally attached to the Bolshevik programme. According to Smith, the First All-Russian Congress of Factory Committees (17-22 Oct 1917) was an overwhelmingly Bolshevik affair. "A majority of the delegates were Bolshevik and the congress voted overwhelmingly for Bolshevik-inspired resolutions". This is despite the presence of alternative Menshevik and anarchist resolutions. Brinton fails to mention that the Bolshevik resolution on workers control - which called for "state workers control" - was decisively passed with only eight votes against

This is only one of many occasions in which FCs endorsed Bolshevik policies and resolutions while rejecting in the process those of the anarchists. Smith has many more and I would strongly recommend his work. So any idea of some bureaucratic Bolshevik/union repressing the FCs has to factor in the fact that the latter were also solidly Bolshevik


-----


this merely shows your own ignorance of what taylorism isFrankly this is getting embarrassing. You seek to insist that operations management has not changed significantly from the 1920s. I've dealt with this before in the thread. It’s a ridiculous misuse of terms


And indeed his efforts to change the nature of set-up work are a good example of taylorism in recent practiceAnd his SMED is a perfect example of how the convergence of technology and work studies can greatly reduce changeover times in manufacturing. But then no doubt you consider it to be "deskilling" to make use of measurement devices instead of manually setting a die by eye

I'd also be interested in hearing how you could have accomplished a similar task simply through "collective science-informed artisanship"?


I also mentioned the example of the new computerized systems for monitoring and controlling workers in big warehouses. IT has faciliated the latest expansion of taylorist practice because of the power it gives to management to constantly monitor a worker's time.Of course, warehouses should always be stocked by hand and monitored by manual cycle counts. Actually automating anything is merely giving power to privileged technicians. I have no time for such luddism but then I understand how integral it is to artisanship production

[syndicat]

You seek to insist that operations management has not changed significantly from the 1920s.

Like I said, you don't know what taylorism is. And in regard to setup, it's one thing to say measurements should be used -- why can't workers do this? -- and another thing altogether to advocate de-skilling.

As to the factory committee movement, the Bolshevik position was that they should merely check management, not takeover management. And yes, in most places this is what continued to happen. And, yes, nationalization took place because the Bolsheviks didn't trust the capitalist management in firms once the civil war got underway. But the decision wasn't made by the factory committee movement.

Moreover, if the Bolsheviks in the factory committee movement were so opposed to worker management, how to explain the Workers Opposition? In the various places where there had been worker committees in charge, these were gone by end of 1920. The Workers Opposition proposed election of management boards by workers.

And insofar as Bolshevik domination of the factory committee movement explains the relatively small number of plants where workers gained power to collectively manage, this is simply further evidence of opposition by Lenin and company to workers self-management.

[Psy]

Like I said, you don't know what taylorism is. And in regard to setup, it's one thing to say measurements should be used -- why can't workers do this? -- and another thing altogether to advocate de-skilling.

In the context of socialism it is centralizing skills for example putting all skilled machinists in R&D by freeing the need for factories from needing skilled machinists.

Why should a machinists of any competence waste their time doing tasks a computer could do once they are programmed to mimic the collective skills of machinists? It is like astronauts having to do the mundane calculations that their computer does for them instead of just relying on their computers to ease their work load.

[ComradeOm]

Like I said, you don't know what taylorism isWhich is a completely baseless position that you keep returning to. I don't agree with your definition of Taylorism and ergo I am ignorant as to its true meaning. This is pointless until you accept that Taylorism as you describe it no longer exists in the workplace


As to the factory committee movement, the Bolshevik position was that they should merely check management, not takeover management. And yes, in most places this is what continued to happenYes - workers supervision. This is what the slogan of 'workers control' (rabochii kontrol') meant in 1917. The term does not mean control in the sense of 'management' that it has in English. (The Russian term for self-management escapes me ATM). Which is why I've been careful to distinguish between workers' supervision and workers' management in this thread


But the decision wasn't made by the factory committee movementIIRC it was VSNKh - a body set up partly on the urgings of the All-Russian Council of Factory Committees (ARCFC)* - that made the decision after intense pressure from the below. In 1918 it was the preference of the Bolshevik leadership, or at least elements of it, to maintain the capitalist management, subject to workers supervision of course, but they were running behind events. The nationalisation decrees were an acceptance that local soviets were pressing ahead with nationalisation regardless of the central government and that retaining the old management was hugely unpopular

*Ironically Lenin was at the time (Oct/Nov) to the left of the FC movement - hence his draft resolution. Also ironically, Shlyapnikov, who was given the task of reconciling the two motions, favoured the more conservative ARCFC proposal - he would later play a prominent role in the Workers Opposition


Moreover, if the Bolsheviks in the factory committee movement were so opposed to worker management, how to explain the Workers Opposition? In the various places where there had been worker committees in charge, these were gone by end of 1920. The Workers Opposition proposed election of management boards by workers.The Workers Opposition envisaged an enlarged role for the trade unions in the running of industry. They did not, to my knowledge, suddenly propose a syndicalist structure for workers management of all industry. In addition, 1920 was very different from 1917 or 1918


And insofar as Bolshevik domination of the factory committee movement explains the relatively small number of plants where workers gained power to collectively manage, this is simply further evidence of opposition by Lenin and company to workers self-management.There were a "relatively small number of plants where workers gained power to collectively manage" not because of "Bolshevik domination" but because workers management was not popular amongst the Russian proletariat. That the FC movement was so overwhelmingly Bolshevik, as opposed to anarchist or syndicalist, was a result of this and not a cause. So your above post should really read "further evidence of opposition by Lenin and the Russian workers to workers self-management"

But then when you start from a position that workers self-management is inherently the correct course of action, and everything to the contrary is counter-revolutionary or bourgeois, then this reality is going to cause problems. Lenin, despite his early belief in 'the creative will of the masses'*, was never a syndicalist. Neither was the Russian working class

* I've already gone into the background on his pretty libertarian draft resolution on workers control. Its possible that Lenin was simply casting some great masquerade to fool everybody by proposing pro-workers control legislation. Or its possible that he genuinely believed in the concept, as backed up by his writings and actions from the period, and only became dispirited towards the end of the year as the economic collapse only accelerated. I know which suggestion I consider more likely… but then I’m not a conspiracy nut